A lot of our readers were disappointed, if not surprised. Wheeler previously worked as a lobbyist for the cable and wireless industries, and while some of his initial statements boded well for consumers, his latest comment was decidedly industry-friendly. As Brainling wrote: "The guy is a former lobbyist for the cable industry. What did people expect? He almost certainly got his job because the cable companies put him there (through other lobbying efforts), specifically to ram rod through anti-consumer/pro-cable rules. This is how America works in 2013 folks. We all better pray Google Fiber works out, because until someone breaks the Big Cable hegemony, you can expect them to go as anti-consumer as the law allows them to."

bburdge agreed: "Yup. Exactly as expected. He will make all these statements about being consumer friendly and for net neutrality, but then add small bits that slowly wear down what those things mean. So here we have 'Yes, net neutrality is great, I fully support it, really important. But you know, paying extra for premium service is not a big deal right, we do it all the time, first class on the airplane, or overnight shipping. That's not against net neutrality, it's just the market...' Sucks for us." ender2003 tried an analogy: "Let's paint a picture. Your house is connected to the city's water supply, for which you already pay a monthly fee (water bill). You "rent" a water hose to use to water your lawn, but then are told that you will have to pay more to use the hose depending on where the water is coming from. You can get water for no charge from the owner of the hose, or you can pay an extra fee to access the city's water. Does that make sense?"

It wasn't all outrage, though. "Yes, yes, slippery slope and all that, but it seems like people are jumping to conclusions," posullivan wrote. "The way I interpreted the statement was that services who have an interest in a dedicated connection (Netflix, high-bandwidth videoconferencing providers like in the article yesterday, etc.) would be able to buy such a dedicated, high-speed connection. In yesterday's article, we saw how the price of such a path is prohibitively high and actually impossible in some circumstances. I didn't think he said Netflix would have to use the line, which would violate net neutrality, but rather it would just be an option."

But Jevry was worried that whatever the ISPs would charge high-bandwidth services would be passed down to the consumers. "So... I am paying my ISP for a certain amount of bandwidth which they advertise. If I choose to use the entirety of that bandwidth for Netflix, I cannot use it for anything else. It's unclear how anyone can argue that ISPs should be paid more to provide exactly what they are currently contracted to be providing. Am I not entitled to the full bandwidth that they claim I've purchased?"

flunk thought there was a lesson to be learned here... for a particular group. "Well, this is a good reason to disconnect built-in mics. Although it is pretty impractical. It might be worth doing on a governmental level." But PlaceHolder continued to be a skeptic. "While an interesting theory, this is basically so much nonsense unless the malware recipient capability is already present on the machine, in which case why bother worrying about air gap jumping as you already have malware to be removing. Now if some [presumably] Chinese manufacturer builds in the capability to some new piece of hardware for nefarious purposes, then we have something to worry about... But even then you should be worried that you have devices listening (and broadcasting) without your knowledge... i.e. you're basically "bugged"...Otherwise... I say continue to follow safe computing practices and nothing new to see here...."

I have no doubt you can do a cheesy FSK modem over a notebook speaker and microphone. But in your nuclear fuel enrichment facility, it is not likely a computer there will be anything but a hand-built PC using carefully inspected components. You don't need a speaker or microphone equipped computer in such a facility. If anything, they are using commercial off the shelf secure SIP phones for communications.

And Ancalagon got to the heart of the matter: "How soon until this malware jumps to a human brain and we all become zombies?"

Yet another smartwatch

Lee Hutchinson received the Toq smartwatch from Qualcomm this week, and after opening it, he played with it for a bit in order to push out some first impressions. Sadly, those first impressions were of a watch that seemed, well, unimpressive. In Hands-on with the Qualcomm Toq smartwatch, Lee describes a wristband that needs to be cut to size, a somewhat fuzzy screen, and inconsistent touch response.

Chuckstar objected to the wristband. "Cutting the band to size... and the band contains electronics so it is essentially non-replaceable? What if I gain weight? What if I buy a new one next year and want to sell this one to someone with a bigger wrist? What if I simply decided I made it a little too tight and want it slightly looser? This just seems like a pretty big fail." And _fluffy wasn't sold on the features yet: "The ONE THING I want a smartwatch for is turn-by-turn GPS navigation while I'm riding my bike. So far none of them seem to offer that."

Stormspace was excited by the potential of the screen, "I was under the impression that this device was being marketed strictly to promote the mirasol display technology. This review seemed all software issues to me and those can be fixed. I'm all over the display technology as an alternative to AMOLED screens."

phoenix_rizzen had some thoughts about other ways that smartwatch makers could differentiate themselves:

A smartwatch is one of the few places I think a widescreen format (16:9 or even wider) makes sense. The wrist is only so high, but the arm is very long.

Instead of trying to shoehorn text and whatnot into a 1-2" square screen, let's move away from the "round watch face" and into the "widescreen on a wrist" phase. A 1.5" x 3" screen would be much nicer, especially for those of us that wear our watches along the bottom of the wrist (the flat part). Maybe make the strap movable in the horizontal to make it sit more comfortably (instead of screen centered on strap, move it to the left for wearing on the left wrist; move it to the right to wear it on the right wrist) without bumping up against the palm.

That way, you could actually put enough text onscreen to be able to read entire SMS or e-mail messages, or alerts, or alarms, or other notifications. And you'd be able to get more information from apps like RunKeeper or Endomondo. And you'd get more surface area for sensors for things like pulse, temp, etc; or for music info; or whatever.

Stop thinking in terms of "watch" and in terms of "extra screen with sensors" and it'll be easier to design
and understand uses.

Edit: Added bonus would be extra room for battery.

But M-S-G was not into the Toq at all. "Just one question: battery life? Waiting to find out during review. Also waiting for one actual feature I would want to use."

26 Reader Comments

Personally, I'm hoping for a backlash from the consumers on this FCC issue.If enough people cry out, he will need to change his toneI'm not optimistic that that will happen, but I believe that it needs to happen.

What does it mean if I comment on a article about comments? It's like looking into a mirror with a camera, or while wearing a mirror. Or better yet- a portal on the floor and ceiling. Will there be an article about the comments of this article? And then, will there be an article about.... Hmm, there goes my day's productivity....

Personally, I'm hoping for a backlash from the consumers on this FCC issue.If enough people cry out, he will need to change his toneI'm not optimistic that that will happen, but I believe that it needs to happen.

There will be a backlash if the effect is broken out into it's own tax...and expressed in clear language. Then people can say, "what is this", and start questioning it. Otherwise like all the taxes and fees (Spanish-American war) on say phone bills people will just go along.

What does it mean if I comment on a article about comments? It's like looking into a mirror with a camera, or while wearing a mirror. Or better yet- a portal on the floor and ceiling. Will there be an article about the comments of this article? And then, will there be an article about.... Hmm, there goes my day's productivity....

You just got sucked into a parallel universe, man. In your new home, DrPizza is DrBroccoli.

I agree with the last comment about the redivculous smartwatch formfactor. Google seems to suggest the average adult forearm is ~9-13 inches. a nice ~7 inch forearm attached device that fell somewhere between smartphone & tablet would be awesome. give it a protectiver cover you can slide out of the way to avoid "oops I just shattered this big curved touch screen on the wall" & it would be great. Let me dock a bluetooth headset right in the forearm mounted component for when I get a phone call or something.

why are we still trying to use a formfactor designed around a watch incapable of doing anything more than tell time

"WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:Remove Thomas Wheeler from the FCCThomas Wheeler is already failing the American People as FCC Chairman.

Creating an Internet where ISP's can charge content providers like NetFlix, YouTube or Facebook for prioritized access to make their services function is a destructive model for internet users.

Thomas Wheeler's comments this week show that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his previous employers, the cable and wireless industry, than in the general interest of the American citizen is not conducive to a free and innovative internet.

I use to believe that ARS Technica took the time to write accurate, balanced, and thoughtful articles. I provided a very valid technical explanation and argument why Wheeler's position is perfectly valid and how it will benefit over-the-top providers like Netflix, Vonage, YouTube, Google, Apple, Amazon, and others yet ARS chose not to include my statements. This article was just about the typical venum that gets spewed in forums on the Internet, and not about why or why not what Wheeler is proposing is good or bad.

I happen to think its a good thing. <b>ALL BITS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL.</b> Ideally I would like to be able to prioritize my voice and most video traffic for free, but it costs extra to buy routers and transport elements that support QoS and manage that traffic. Businesses pay extra for that capability and so should retail consumers. You will not get a quality OTT service with best effort. Also you are not paying twice for this capability because the Internet service you are purchasing just says that the ISP will do its best to get you the traffic.

I don't like the government interfering in anything and I am not particularly fond of politicians and bureaucrats of any type and party; yet we are forced to accept the FCC's meddling in free-enterprise and the Internet. Tom Wheeler is one of the better commissioners that we have had in a long time because he does have industry experience and he is somewhat technically familiar with how things work. Frankly I am shocked that we don't have another life-long academian or bureaucrat that has no real-world experience. People should try to understand the facts before starting their lynch mobs.

Traffic prioritization is NOT net neutrality. We are not going to see true competition to the incumbent telco and cableco service providers anytime soon due to the cost of building the last-mile so OTT providers are the only real competition that they will face. If these competing service providers cannot provide an equivalent or superior quality of experience, then they will fade away and we will be stuck with the same vanilla offerings that we are forced to take today. Adding an extra buck or two a month to my VoIP phone service that keeps the voice quality good is still 60% lower than the telco or MSO alternative plus I get more features. Wheeler is trying to give the OTT service providers a fighting change to compete against what you people think are his masters. Support him; don't trash him.

I use to believe that ARS Technica took the time to write accurate, balanced, and thoughtful articles. I provided a very valid technical explanation and argument why Wheeler's position is perfectly valid and how it will benefit over-the-top providers like Netflix, Vonage, YouTube, Google, Apple, Amazon, and others yet ARS chose not to include my statements. This article was just about the typical venum that gets spewed in forums on the Internet, and not about why or why not what Wheeler is proposing is good or bad.

I happen to think its a good thing. <b>ALL BITS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL.</b> Ideally I would like to be able to prioritize my voice and most video traffic for free, but it costs extra to buy routers and transport elements that support QoS and manage that traffic. Businesses pay extra for that capability and so should retail consumers. You will not get a quality OTT service with best effort. Also you are not paying twice for this capability because the Internet service you are purchasing just says that the ISP will do its best to get you the traffic.

I don't like the government interfering in anything and I am not particularly fond of politicians and bureaucrats of any type and party; yet we are forced to accept the FCC's meddling in free-enterprise and the Internet. Tom Wheeler is one of the better commissioners that we have had in a long time because he does have industry experience and he is somewhat technically familiar with how things work. Frankly I am shocked that we don't have another life-long academian or bureaucrat that has no real-world experience. People should try to understand the facts before starting their lynch mobs.

Traffic prioritization is NOT net neutrality. We are not going to see true competition to the incumbent telco and cableco service providers anytime soon due to the cost of building the last-mile so OTT providers are the only real competition that they will face. If these competing service providers cannot provide an equivalent or superior quality of experience, then they will fade away and we will be stuck with the same vanilla offerings that we are forced to take today. Adding an extra buck or two a month to my VoIP phone service that keeps the voice quality good is still 60% lower than the telco or MSO alternative plus I get more features. Wheeler is trying to give the OTT service providers a fighting change to compete against what you people think are his masters. Support him; don't trash him.

A rank and file government employee is expected to disclose when one of their relatives, even a distant one, applies for any job, even a shitty one at the same agency. But for some reason our regulatory agencies, making decisions that impact millions and may make or break the economy, are being run by people that clearly have a conflict of interest. (fixed a typo)

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-thomas-wheeler-fcc/4FnxF7vyThomas Wheeler's comments this week show that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his previous employers, the cable and wireless industry, than in the general interest of the American citizen is not conducive to a free and innovative internet.

Created: Dec 04, 2013" needs 100,000 votes

Maybe you could explain how it isn't fair for services that consume a lot of bandwidth to pay more for that bandwidth than services that use little bandwidth?

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-thomas-wheeler-fcc/4FnxF7vyThomas Wheeler's comments this week show that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his previous employers, the cable and wireless industry, than in the general interest of the American citizen is not conducive to a free and innovative internet.

Created: Dec 04, 2013" needs 100,000 votes

Maybe you could explain how it isn't fair for services that consume a lot of bandwidth to pay more for that bandwidth than services that use little bandwidth?

Maybe you could explain how you think that is happening. Netflix isn't getting a free ride .Netflix is paying to get their content on the net. I am paying Comcast to send it to me. It doesn't matter if all my bandwith goes to netflix, or if its divided equally across the world, I've paid to have it delivered. Comcast has no business trying to charge Netflix to do a job I've already paid Comcast to do.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-thomas-wheeler-fcc/4FnxF7vyThomas Wheeler's comments this week show that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his previous employers, the cable and wireless industry, than in the general interest of the American citizen is not conducive to a free and innovative internet.

Created: Dec 04, 2013" needs 100,000 votes

Maybe you could explain how it isn't fair for services that consume a lot of bandwidth to pay more for that bandwidth than services that use little bandwidth?

I know this is the dog & pony show that everyone trots out in this kind of discussion, but it has never been the issue.

To quote directly from my advanced networking class. Nothing isn't solved by adding more capacity. So what ISPs did instead was to add QoS to their networks. This is used to "tune" traffic to fit their needs. It is not a far stretch for content providers to "tune" down, and degrade the service of a competitor. In fact it has already been done in the past. This creates "artificial scarcity" to drive up prices 10 times what they are internationally. I could go into greater detail about peering arrangements, and how certain parties are not upgrading capacity according to convention. Also how the Internet is not some magical link to your home, but instead is a potential speed bump at any point till it reaches your ISP. No matter how fast your connection is that your ISP over changed you for. These are not the real issues.

This is about greed sir, and nothing else. This is ISPs holding you hostage as a means of selling off access to you as a commodity to competitors.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-thomas-wheeler-fcc/4FnxF7vyThomas Wheeler's comments this week show that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his previous employers, the cable and wireless industry, than in the general interest of the American citizen is not conducive to a free and innovative internet.

Created: Dec 04, 2013" needs 100,000 votes

Maybe you could explain how it isn't fair for services that consume a lot of bandwidth to pay more for that bandwidth than services that use little bandwidth?

Because they provide the content that the ISP is charging money for?? If anything the ISPs should be paying content providers!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-thomas-wheeler-fcc/4FnxF7vyThomas Wheeler's comments this week show that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his previous employers, the cable and wireless industry, than in the general interest of the American citizen is not conducive to a free and innovative internet.

Created: Dec 04, 2013" needs 100,000 votes

Maybe you could explain how it isn't fair for services that consume a lot of bandwidth to pay more for that bandwidth than services that use little bandwidth?

Because they provide the content that the ISP is charging money for?? If anything the ISPs should be paying content providers!

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-thomas-wheeler-fcc/4FnxF7vyThomas Wheeler's comments this week show that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his previous employers, the cable and wireless industry, than in the general interest of the American citizen is not conducive to a free and innovative internet.

Created: Dec 04, 2013" needs 100,000 votes

Maybe you could explain how it isn't fair for services that consume a lot of bandwidth to pay more for that bandwidth than services that use little bandwidth?

Maybe you could explain how you think that is happening. Netflix isn't getting a free ride .Netflix is paying to get their content on the net. I am paying Comcast to send it to me. It doesn't matter if all my bandwith goes to netflix, or if its divided equally across the world, I've paid to have it delivered. Comcast has no business trying to charge Netflix to do a job I've already paid Comcast to do.

Maybe I misread what the article is saying. It's not entirely clear. I read it as a charge on high-bandwidth services. I think you're reading it as a charge on priority, which would violate net neutrality.

I think it would be more fair in general to charge services or end users by bandwidth used because bandwidth costs the ISP money; they have to build out more capacity to deliver it over their network. It's only fair that the services that push bandwidth expansion shoulder that their services impose on the network, but it would also be fair to charge users by the gigabyte of traffic to their cable modems, presuming they're requesting it. But it's hard for an ISP to know whether the traffic to your address is there at your request or you're being spammed. It's better if they can charge it to the people who are actually shoveling it onto their network.

If it's pay-for-priority, then I'm still not sure I agree with you. I used to be very much on the side of network neutrality, but now I'm less sure. There are services that must be timely to be useful and there are services that don't need to be timely. Streamed video and on line games need to be timely because users will notice the delay. However, I don't care if those unwanted ads in my browser never load at all. Since streamed audio can be queued up, it also has less need to be timely. If the rule is "go to the end of the line" for all services, things you don't want delayed may be delayed and things you don't care about may get there first.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-thomas-wheeler-fcc/4FnxF7vyThomas Wheeler's comments this week show that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his previous employers, the cable and wireless industry, than in the general interest of the American citizen is not conducive to a free and innovative internet.

Created: Dec 04, 2013" needs 100,000 votes

Maybe you could explain how it isn't fair for services that consume a lot of bandwidth to pay more for that bandwidth than services that use little bandwidth?

Because they provide the content that the ISP is charging money for?? If anything the ISPs should be paying content providers!

Then you will be charged whatever the ISP wants for whatever services the ISP wants to give you.

What does it mean if I comment on a article about comments? It's like looking into a mirror with a camera, or while wearing a mirror. Or better yet- a portal on the floor and ceiling. Will there be an article about the comments of this article? And then, will there be an article about.... Hmm, there goes my day's productivity....

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-thomas-wheeler-fcc/4FnxF7vyThomas Wheeler's comments this week show that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his previous employers, the cable and wireless industry, than in the general interest of the American citizen is not conducive to a free and innovative internet.

Created: Dec 04, 2013" needs 100,000 votes

Maybe you could explain how it isn't fair for services that consume a lot of bandwidth to pay more for that bandwidth than services that use little bandwidth?

Sure thing. I already paid Time Warner for that bandwidth.

If I used the Cable theory of incoming traffic paying to recipients, Time Warner should be paying ME for all the traffic I consume.

"WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:Remove Thomas Wheeler from the FCCThomas Wheeler is already failing the American People as FCC Chairman.

Creating an Internet where ISP's can charge content providers like NetFlix, YouTube or Facebook for prioritized access to make their services function is a destructive model for internet users.

Thomas Wheeler's comments this week show that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his previous employers, the cable and wireless industry, than in the general interest of the American citizen is not conducive to a free and innovative internet.

Created: Dec 04, 2013" needs 100,000 votes

Doesn't seem to have any traction, even within the 'tech community' (as if such a critter really exists). 658 votes with mine.

"WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:Remove Thomas Wheeler from the FCCThomas Wheeler is already failing the American People as FCC Chairman.

Creating an Internet where ISP's can charge content providers like NetFlix, YouTube or Facebook for prioritized access to make their services function is a destructive model for internet users.

Thomas Wheeler's comments this week show that he is more interested in lining the pockets of his previous employers, the cable and wireless industry, than in the general interest of the American citizen is not conducive to a free and innovative internet.

Created: Dec 04, 2013" needs 100,000 votes

Doesn't seem to have any traction, even within the 'tech community' (as if such a critter really exists). 658 votes with mine.

Yeah it seems you're right. 100,000 people in every state of the union seems like a ankle high hurdle. It was the same fate for the TSA, and the radiation body scanners. Not enough people willing to take the time, or show an interest. Tragic...

I am amazed at the level of selfishness displayed and the basic lack of understanding of the problem.

Comparing bandwidth and speed is like saying that a 2-lane hwy with speed limit of 70mph is the same as an interstate with 14-lanes and 70mph speed limit. They are not. In theory, the larger road can move 7x more vehicles. Should 1 truck be allowed to use 9-lanes of bandwidth all the time?

Our ISPs need to prioritize traffic, period. Should the home doing light surfing be penalized for the homes using BT 24/7/365 and watching 4 hrs of hidef netflix nightly?

Sadly, a metered solution will be the end result. It is the only fair way to solve this.

ISPs can't explain to grandma why her weekly video chats use 2000x more bandwidth than web surfing. I've tried. She doesn't care. Either it works or it doesn't. Most end-users are the same. They don't care if 500 other people share that same pipe to the distribution point, then it is joined with traffic from 20K-50K other people before hitting the internet.

Sure, we all need to complain about service when it fails to meet our needs, but we shouldn't be surprised when it costs more to get the level of service we demand. I wish Google Fiber was available in my part of the country. It would force competition for ISP services. Sadly, that will never happen - politics.

What is with US ISPs trying to burn the candle at both ends? You can't charge consumers for access to Netflix and Netflix for access to consumers, that is just plain greedy. What's next trying to charge Google?

You don't provide any details. Do they have the same bandwidth and cap package,and both within cap? If so, then yes.

Essentially, what you're saying is that both families should pay for their data, then additionally for using that bandwidth. That's plain wrong, couldn't be more wrong if you lathered it in mayonnaise and slid it across razor blades...

Simply put. If both have an ISP agreement allowing 50Gb cap per day, and they're both under that cap on their usage, then they should have the same bill. 50Gb was paid for, whether you use it to stream 50Gb of HD data or read 50mb worth of websites.